If the traffic is favorable, it would take about fifteen
minutes to drive from the Special
Operations Center in downtown Minneapolis – the site of Obama’s photo op
with hundreds of area police -- to the home office of Law Enforcement Targets,
Inc., in nearby Blaine. The company, a contractor for the Department of
Homeland Security, produces training targets that are “designed to give
officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with
subjects that are not the norm during training,” according to its promotional
literature.

Among the training targets are images depicting “non-traditional
threats,” such as pregnant women, children, and grandmotherly women – in other
words, “Little People” – carrying guns.

The company’s marketing team explains
that the “non-traditional targets “ were created at the request of police officers and trainers, who are seeking to
dis-inhibit the killing instincts of police “when deadly force is required on
subjects with atypical age, frailty or condition…. This hesitation time may be
only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing their lives in
these same situations…. If that hesitation time can be cut down due to range
experience, the officer and the community are better served.”

That is to say, it can condition them to overcome the
natural and indispensable reluctance to kill the innocent and helpless. This is
summarized in the company’s sales slogan: “No more hesitation.”

A few years ago, the media experienced a brief but acute
spasm of indignation over the fact that pictures
of Obama were being used as targets at arcade games. This was done to
capitalize on a commendable impulse – unfettered contempt for a corrupt
official who kills and impoverishes others under the color of “authority” –
that had curdled into simple rancor. The paying customers at that shooting
gallery, however, had not been indoctrinated in the belief that they had social
license to engage in discretionary killing, nor were they being conditioned to
kill others without hesitation.

According to Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., its training
materials are used by several federal agencies, every branch of the military,
and “thousands of law enforcement agencies at the municipal, county, and state
levels.” Its materials were almost certainly used to train some of the officers
assembled at the Special Operations Center for Obama’s February 4 photo-op. It’s
likely that company officials had been invited, as well.

That fact didn’t perturb the Secret Service as it made
security arrangements for the photo-op. However, the presidential security
detail should have taken alarm over the fact that the assembly included the
hyper-violent men who shot and killed Obama – not the politician, the
six-month-old Pitbull puppy – three years ago.

On July 9, 2009, a ten-officer Minneapolis SWAT team
attacked the home of Darrell and Cymonne Williams. The no-knock raid – which
violated the terms of the search warrant – was staged to arrest Cymonne’s adult
son, Tierre Caldwell, who was a suspect in a shooting. At the time of the raid
the police knew that Caldwell lived at a different address.

With weapons drawn and wearing standard Stormtrooper attire,
the police broke down the front door and barged into the home. Reacting to the
commotion, Obama (the puppy) barged downstairs with Cymonne following behind
him. Before she could clearly see the intruders, they had already shot and
killed the dog. She retreated back up the stairs in terror, passing her alarmed
husband, who had settled down for an afternoon nap after finishing work.
Darrell was clad only in his underwear when he confronted the invaders.

“What the hell are you doing in my house?” he demanded. One
of the officers yelled at him to get down. With his hands raised, Darrell
reiterated his question. By way of reply, Sgt. Mark Sletta committed an act of
aggravated assault by hitting Darrel in the face with the butt of his assault
rifle. As the victim hit the floor, Officer Mark Durand kicked him repeatedly
in the torso while two others zip-cuffed him. Two other officers pitched in by
stomping on the prone and helpless man. The intruders briefly searched the home
and, failing to find the subject of the arrest warrant, left with neither an
explanation nor an apology.

Darrell Williams was taken to the hospital to be treated for
severe trauma to his right eye, bruised ribs, and other injuries. The criminal
violence inflicted on him by the armed tax-feeders who invaded his home caused
Darrell to miss eight days of productive work.

After the Williams family filed a lawsuit against the
department, the perpetrators invoked the familiar claim of “qualified
immunity.” The
US District Court for Minnesota, examining the incident with solicitous
care for the privileges of the state’s punitive priesthood, ruled that the sacred
imperative of “officer safety” justified the killing of Obama (the dog), the
use of a rifle to attack Darrell Williams, and the act of stomping on his head
once he was prone, handcuffed, and bleeding.

For reasons not clear to the rational mind, the same court
that approved of those acts of violence and property destruction said that
Officer Durand’s act of kicking Williams in the ribs was not covered by “qualified immunity.” It’s possible that this was
done to provide the family with a single actionale claim. This, in turn, gave
the city an opportunity to negotiate a paltry civil settlement in order to make
the case go away. The Williams family eventually received $75,000 from the City
of Minneapolis.

SWAT handiwork: One of Rickia Russell's legs.

Minneapolis taxpayers were forced to underwrite a much
bigger settlement with Rickia
Russell, a young woman who suffered third- and fourth-degree burns to her
legs during a SWAT raid on her boyfriend’s apartment.

On February 16, 2010, Russell and her boyfriend were eating
a late dinner when a SWAT team broke down the door to the apartment. One of the
raiders looked into Russell’s eyes before throwing a flash-bang grenade
directly at her.

“Get on the ground!” grunted one of the stormtroopers as
more than a dozen others swarmed into the room. While she was being zip-cuffed,
Williams complained that her legs were “on fire.” Her legs were covered with
shrapnel from the flash-bang grenade, which burns at a temperature of
3,800-4,200 degrees. The skin on both of her calves had been eaten away.

The raid was staged in pursuit of a drug dealer who didn’t
live at the address, and who wasn’t known by either Williams or her boyfriend.
The city paid off the victim with a huge subsidized settlement, but the
criminals who left her mangled were never punished.

Rickia underwent long and painful skin-graft treatments in
which flesh was removed from her scalp in order to reconstruct her legs. She is
still undergoing therapy to recover from her injuries.

Vander Lee, a father of four who is employed in the productive
sector, was talking on a cell phone when Clifford accosted him and then hit him
with a punch to the head that knocked him to the ground. As a result of falling
head-first onto a concrete surface, the victim suffered head trauma so intense
that it required two brain surgeries and 40 hours on life support.

The bold and valiant SWAT operator who sucker-punched the
unarmed and puzzled victim – and then ran away -- insisted
that he acted in “self-defense” – but don’t they always? He remains on paid
administrative leave pending his trial in April.

In 2011, Minneapolis
tax victims underwrote $4.7 million in legal settlements to “Little People”
who suffered criminal violence at the hands of the municipality’s punitive
caste – and to the survivors of people who were killed by them. City Attorney
Susan Segal breezily dismisses that figure, and the carnage that produced it, as
the kind of overhead that comes from doing a brisk business in official
coercion.

“Minneapolis Police have more than a million contacts with
people every year, and our officers are constantly in harm’s way,” Segal sniffed.
She apparently believes that the danger comes from the police coming into
contact with the public they supposedly serve, when clearly the police
themselves are the most prolific practitioners of violence.

Duy Ngo and his wife, Mary.

In 2007, another $4.7 million settlement was paid to a
single victim -- the late Duy
Ngo. Mr. Ngo was a Vietnamese refugee who enlisted in the Army the summer
of his senior year in High School and became a police officer a few years later.
In 2003, while working undercover with the Metro Gang Strike Force, Ngo was shot by a
fellow officer.

Ngo,
who was sitting in an unmarked police vehicle in an area frequently by drug
dealers, was shot by a would-be carjacker. His bullet-resistant vest saved Ngo’s
life during the initial shooting. After calling for assistance, Ngo pursued the
attacker, but lost him within a few blocks. Seeking to catch his breath, and dealing
with abdominal pain from the point-blank shots fired into his vest, Ngo slumped
to his knees at an intersection, then waved his hands feebly when a police car
pulled up. A few seconds later, Officer Charles Storlie emerged from the car
and immediately opened up on Ngo with his MP5 semi-automatic machine gun. Ngo
survived the second shooting, but was left permanently disabled.

More painful than his physical injuries was the sense of
disillusionment that descended on Ngo as he found himself being treated as one
of the “Little People.”

The department he had served ventilated rumors that Ngo, an
Army reservist, had staged the initial shooting in an attempt to avoid
deployment to Iraq. When Storlie visited Ngo in the hospital, the shooter
informed the victim that although he regretted Ngo’s condition, he believed
that he had done the right thing in the circumstances by shooting him – and that
he would do exactly the same thing in the future in similar situations.

Ngo eventually underwent twenty-six surgeries. The
department, employing every dilatory tactic it had perfected in dealing with
excessive force complaints filed by Mundanes, dragged out the official inquiry
through four years and the administrations of three police chiefs. In 2007, the
city approved a $4.7 million civil
settlement to Ngo.

“The settlement was a staggering amount of money,” observed Mayor
R.T. Rybak. “But it’s staggering how much officers put their lives on the line.”

Rybak deployed the appropriate cliché without considering
the context: Ngo, once again, was shot to pieces by another police officer –
that is, someone who represents the most dangerous element in the city.

Ngo’s vest saved him from the first shooting. In the second
shooting, his body was mangled but his life was spared because of the
characteristically poor marksmanship of a police officer. But the wounds – and the
concentrated viciousness of the bureaucracy that employed him – did eventually prove
fatal: He
committed suicide in June 2010.

By that time, Ngo – who remained on the force – was confined
to clerical duties. That means that he was a Cop In Name Only, a status just
above that of the Little People. And in the eyes of the Exalted Purveyors of
Officially Sanctioned Violence, such creatures are useful for little more than
target practice.

38 comments:

A few years ago I took some pictures off the internet- pictures of cops engaged in acts of theft such as "traffic stops" and acts of malicious aggression, such as "checkpoints"- and added bulls-eyes to their heads. I was intending to use the pictures as illustrations for a blog post I was writing. I can't find the pictures anymore. As far as I can tell, I changed my mind about using those particular illustrations.

Maybe it's time to make some more- after all, hesitation can be fatal for those of us on the right side, too.

“The accumluated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, “Save Us!”….and I’ll look down and whisper, “No”…The Watchmen

This post and so many others highlights the prime directive of the State: to absolve their friends, whether in the system or outside it, of the consequences of their bad behavior. This kind of thing only happens when you allow an institution a monopoly of force.

A vey regrettable development but very useful information. It seems certain elements within the law enforcement community are intent on escalating tensions between them and the population. They continue to fail to understand that they are outnumbered and outgunned by seversal orders of magnitude. The concept of no hesitation works both ways.

I think perhaps the worst part of this is that they get away with it by paying victims with money stolen from the public.

A law should be passed that says that when a public SERVANT commits a crime or inflicts harm that they should have to pay any settlements that are agreed upon even if the suit is filed against the city, state, etc.

As it stands, the officials don't care because they just pay with our money and take some extra next time.

At least that way the servants doing the dirty work will understand that they are personally responsible regardless. At that point the commanders will not be able to carry out the tyranny because the grunts are afraid of losing their life savings.

I am desperately seeking advice and help regarding my situation. I've been charged with crimes (felony battery) that I did NOT commit. I am attempting to compel my public pretender to enter evidence into the record establishing (with PROOF) that I had every reason to believe my physical safety was at risk. I am also in possession of video evidence of a local police officer engaged in extra-marital sexual activity with my accuser. I am considering making this video and information available to the public and media - at which point my life will be in danger from police retaliation. I live in one of the most corrupt cities in the United States. I live in fear but I also feel strongly that if I don't stand for justice, no one ever will. I'm posting this as anonymous for now but I will monitor the comment for a response, if any. I have TONS of documented evidence to support my assertion. Is there some way I can contact you about this? Thank you in advance.

What would you have the cops do when a kid, an old man or a pregnant woman points a gun at them?

If the cops are the aggressors, I'd have them yield -- or, if they escalate the situation, die. If they're behaving like street criminals or armed robbers, they should be treated in exactly the same way.

What would you do if you are carrying concealed on the street or in a business? Hesitate and be shot?

As somebody who is not employed as an agent of aggressive violence, it is difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which I would face the supposed need to kill a child, a pregnant woman, or an elderly person.

Nothing like over reacting Will.

I take it that my "over-reaction" is manifest by my refusal to see children, pregnant women, and elderly persons as immediate threats to my well-being...?

"I take it that my "over-reaction" is manifest by my refusal to see children, pregnant women, and elderly persons as immediate threats to my well-being...?"

A better question than many may realize. These targets literally are not the kind of people that would point a weapon at another person unless they were under extreme duress.

If a LEO believes it is reasonable to purposefully place citizens in such a state and then exacerbate their terroristic behavior by murdering, without hesitation, these victims, it must be concluded that the rule of law no longer exists.

This leaves us the uncomfortable choice of taking even further steps to ensure our own safety and security thus further escalating voilent tensions between the LE community and the rest of us.

When will the "good" people within law enforcement understand that, for there own safety, these people must be purged from their ranks. They do not seem to understand where this conduct will, inevitably, lead.

If you don't like your "public pretender" then hire a private attorney. Beggars are not choosers any more in the law than in any other areas of life. I guarantee that there are plenty of defense lawyers willing to take a decent case for a fair fee. But the case has to have merit...

What would you have the cops do when a kid, an old man or a pregnant woman points a gun at them?

"If the cops are the aggressors, I'd have them yield -- or, if they escalate the situation, die. If they're behaving like street criminals or armed robbers, they should be treated in exactly the same way."- Will

But these pictures of a person pointing a gun at you don't give you options, it's a person pointing a gun at you. Should cops only train with big ugly looking dudes with guns pointing at them?

What would you do if you are carrying concealed on the street or in a business? Hesitate and be shot?

"As somebody who is not employed as an agent of aggressive violence, it is difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which I would face the supposed need to kill a child, a pregnant woman, or an elderly person." - Will

Right, every cop everywhere is an agent of aggressive violence, you write about a few bad apples while thousands of police officers across this country go about their jobs as peace officers serving and protecting the cizens in their town, every day, just like my Dad did yet you make a living painting all cops with the same brush.If you can't imagine a senario when someone points a gun at you then you are not prepared to defend yourself or your family because kids shoot people, females shoot people.

Nothing like over reacting Will.

"I take it that my "over-reaction" is manifest by my refusal to see children, pregnant women, and elderly persons as immediate threats to my well-being...?" - Will

Not at all, your over reacting in my view is based on your lack of reasoning. You look at the pictures and see a young person, pregnant woman or elderly. You fail to mention the gun pointed at you. But if you did that then you would not be able to continue to stir up paranoia against the police and rile up your followers.

What would you have the cops do when a kid, an old man or a pregnant woman points a gun at them?

If the cops are the aggressors, I'd have them yield -- or, if they escalate the situation, die. If they're behaving like street criminals or armed robbers, they should be treated in exactly the same way.

These are targets with people pointing a gun at you. If you, a cop or a civilian hesitates when someone is pointing a gun at you then you are dead. Women and children do shoot people. This is a way to get that into the heads of cops because it's not a natural thing.

If these were pictures of someone knitting or drinking lemonade then I would understand the concern but they are threat targets nothing more.

For some reason (paranoid) because the target pointing the gun at you is pregnant, old or young, people think cops are training to shoot people just because they are pregnant, old or young, weird.

If someone points a gun at you they are a threat. You can't go "oh it's a pregnant lady I shouldn't shoot" or "oh it's a kid, I shouldn't shoot".

A threat is a threat no matter what. Training to only shoot monsters or rag heads is stupid.

"What would you have the cops do when a kid, an old man or a pregnant woman points a gun at them?"

Retreat, find cover, resolve the situation peacefully.

Not long ago, a nearby county had the sheriff, a couple of deputies, and a couple state troopers on a call. The "criminal" was an old man with a single shot shotgun. The cops when in with their typical attitude. The old man fired his SINGLE SHOT shotgun missing everything but the ground. Instead of these officers rushing him and disarming the guy, they empty their weapons at him. Of course of the tens of rounds fired, they only hit him a couple times. But it was enough to kill him.

There are no good cops.Disarm the police for a safer America.All cops lie, all the time.

But these pictures of a person pointing a gun at you don't give you options, it's a person pointing a gun at you --

-- as part of a contrived training scenario that is intended to cultivate in the minds of the trainee a disposition to see everybody as a threat to that highest and holiest of considerations, "officer safety."

Policing, contrary to official propaganda, is not a dangerous occupation. There is not, and most likely never will be, a mass outbreak of shootings in which the perpetrator is a child or a pregnant woman, and the victim a police officer who is simply minding his own business. In contrast, innocent people are shot or otherwise harmed by police every week (if not more frequently).

If you're a peace officer who confronts a situation like the one we're discussing, you've already made a moral commitment to something other than "officer safety" -- which means, as Chris suggested, you find another option that doesn't involve simply killing a member of the public you're committed to serve and protect.

Right, every cop everywhere is an agent of aggressive violence --

The police are to the state as the edge is to the knife. The state is a social artifact that claims a monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

you write about a few bad apples while thousands of police officers across this country go about their jobs as peace officers serving and protecting the cizens in their town, every day, just like my Dad did yet you make a living painting all cops with the same brush.

Find me a comparable number of documented cases in which small children, pregnant women, or elderly people target police, and I'll grant that this critique has some merit. What is genuinely appalling is not merely the number of cases of police abuse -- and they're much more common that you apparently think -- but the fact that genuinely good police officers who intervene to protect citizens against such abuses are thrown out of the service, while abusers generally are not.

I grant that there are decent people who are employed as police, and allow that your father, as you describe him, was part of that cohort. The institution, however, is irremediably corrupt, and growing ever worse.

A big problem with these targets is that the people holding the guns don't show an attitude of aggression, but seem to be defensive- except for the little kid who just looks confused.

Do you think a cop/reaver is only going to respond to its training when in uniform? Nope. He would shoot and kill an innocent person responding to the same threat he might be responding to. Holding a gun, and having it "at the ready", should not be a capital offense.

Add to this the fact that reavers have been known to "mistake" wallets, toys, cell phones, ink pens, and empty hands for a gun pointed at them. With deadly consequences for the innocent person.

If I saw an aggressive, armed person in my yard I would take defensive measures. If I saw someone who was apparently responding to a threat they perceived, like those in the targets appear to be- then I shouldn't automatically kill them. I am a self-responsible person. If I make a mistake and die from it, that is still better than me killing an innocent person because I was too anxious to kill.

It is better that one hundred cops be killed by failing to act, than for cops to kill even one innocent person by acting incorrectly.

If reavers can't handle the "stress" of that responsibility they should turn in their badges.

"The police are to the state as the edge is to the knife. The state is a social artifact that claims a monopoly on- the use of aggressive force."

Your local police answer to your chief of police who answers to the city council and mayor. Your county deputies answer to your sheriff who answers to the voters and the county commissioners. Perhaps the problem is "we" don't spend enough time with our elected representatives at the city council or county commissioners meetings?

"I grant that there are decent people who are employed as police, and allow that your father, as you describe him, was part of that cohort. The institution, however, is irremediably corrupt, and growing ever worse."

irremediably corrupt? I think that depends on where you live and how long you (making no assumptions or derogitory remarks)or your fellow citizens have neglected to meet with your elected officials, granted it's a lost cause nationaly but at the local level each one of us should know at the very least our city councilmen and local sheriff on a first name basis. It could be that I live in a very small town but I know from experience, just a couple people complaining to a city council member about anything dealing with our cops gets it dealt with.

I think it's way to early to be giving up on our local cops.

One more thing Will and then I will back on out of here and let you continue to pick the bad apples out of the barrel.

I know hate for cops sells, so does "bad" news about most anything else (just turn on the 6:00 news) but know that usually the bad cops are getting put away by the good cops. When one is arrested there is no story about the ones putting hand cuffs on them, just a focus on the bad one. Like I said earlier, there are thousands of police going about their job the CITIZENS of thier town hired them to do everyday, those that answer the call to a burglary, an assault, rape, murder etc. Only focusing on the bad apples is just like the liberal news media only focusing on all the bad that happens, I know, I know, good news doesn't sell.

Writing about police abuse isn't a matter of picking isolated bad apples out of a barrel; it more like gathering manna in a basket, except for the fact that the manna is spoiled.

I know hate for cops sells, so does "bad" news about most anything else (just turn on the 6:00 news) but know that usually the bad cops are getting put away by the good cops.

None of the bad cops depicted in the accounts above has been punished in any way. In many -- if not most -- cases in which cops are punished, it happens after a long and expensive process and generally involves a sentence of unusual leniency. In many jurisdictions, police who are convicted of felonies often keep their pensions, as well.

By way of contrast, genuinely conscientious peace officers like Regina Tasca and Ramon Perez who intervene to protect citizens from criminal violence by fellow officers are subject to IMMEDIATE discipline and, usually, expulsion from the force because they're seen as a threat to "officer safety."

As to the risible notion that criticism of the police "sells" --

Last night I received an e-mail from a sheriff's deputy -- a functionary who gets paid no less than $50K/year, and probably half again that much, to harass the people upon whose plunder wealth he feeds -- who accused me of making a handsome living as a "police-hater." Last year, as an independent journalist and sole provider for a family of eight, I earned a fraction of what that fellow is paid.

I spend much of my time pleading with well-paid people in "mainstream" news outlets to cover the abuses I write about. They resolutely refuse to do so, in large measure because their professional security requires that they be stenographers for the local government, and cheerleaders for that government's costumed enforcers.

Police aren't hired by "citizens" and they have no enforceable duty to protect them. The are hired by municipal corporations and accountable only to them.

As one of your heroic police chiefs pointed out the other day, the reason why police carry guns is to threaten the public, not to protect it:

"A gun is not a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power. Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other [sic] officers. They carry a gun in order to do their job in a safe and effective manner, and face any oppositions [sic] that we may come upon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZmoHVTtLxA

In brief: Police are agents of state-sanctioned aggression who carry guns to "intimidate .. and show power."

What that means is that police are a threat to the public. They are, in other words, a standing army of occupation, albeit one that includes the occasional aberrant individual who does commendable things.

You're "not ready to give up" on a standing army of occupation. Americans worthy of the title gave up on this kind of thing in 1776.

I look at those targets and I see normal people facing a deadly threat- and preparing to take care of it in an appropriate manner.

If we are to pretend that the ridiculous notion of having people be cops is not ridiculous, then the ultimate (in every sense of the word) responsibility of a cop is to die in place of an innocent person. "Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way.

But yeah, it's too bad that the bad apples among the reavers give the other .00001% a bad name.

I had the pleasure of speaking at an event with Sheriff Mack in California a few years ago. I'm quite impressed with him, and encouraged by what he's doing.

Stewart Rhodes is somebody with whom I've spoken a great deal, and I think he's an immensely bright and talented man. I was delighted when the Oath Keepers held a rally in Tucson to protest the murder of Jose Guerena.

The problem is not a paucity of "good cops"; the problem is that those good people eagerly enlist to do objectively bad things -- such as mulcting people at gun point and enforcing patently unconstitutional and utterly immoral "laws" against vice.

Only an immeasurably small percentage of what police do has ANYTHING to do with protecting lives and property. An absolute majority of America's prison population -- the largest in the world -- consists of people who have not been convicted of actual crimes of violence or fraud. In this fact we find the most powerful indictment of what the "good" police officers do in our country. Even if none of the abuses about which I write had ever been committed, the system would still be morally unsupportable.

"What would you have the cops do when a kid, an old man or a pregnant woman points a gun at them?"

Die.

Here's a more elaborate answer: If cops want to put their own safety first in all situations (as, "arguably", any normal person would do), then fine, but they get to be treated like any normal person would be when they shoot someone (in which case there will be an awful lot of cops going to prison, and death row). If, on the other hand, they want to claim to be heroes who are putting their lives on the line every day for us (rather than putting our lives on the line every day for themselves, which is what they actually do in the real world), then yes, they need to hesitate before shooting at women (pregnant or not) or children or, for that matter, at men, even when this puts them and their gang brothers at risk. In either case, if they want to be treated as something other than dishonest, unconscionably privileged, and incredibly whiny thugs, then they need to act like something other than privileged, dishonest, whiny thugs.

In the opening battles of the Civil War the generals observed a troubling revelation:they were collecting 2 to 3 times the number of loaded yet undischarged muskets thanthose that were actually fired upon the "enemy."

How can you win or conduct total war if you can't be sure your troops will kill oncommand? Thus began what we now know as military desensitization training.Thanks to video games, the average 13 year old has already received the equivalentof a military program several times over.

Anyone who is not outraged by the police using paper targets depicting defenseless women and children has already been desensitized by default.

Placing a gun in the hand of a child depicted thus does not beg the question of whether a police officer should shoot, it begs the question of why a childwould point a gun at a police officer in the first place.

As usual, Grigg hits the nail on the head by pointing this out.

As for those that accuse him of merchandizing "cop hate," you have to ask yourself,"who are his best customers?" Maybe the paper targets will give you a clue.

"No Hesitation" is a door that swings in both directions, a door which was better left unopened and locked. As we saw during the hunt for ex-LAPD officer Christopher Dorner and the shooting of 2 occupied vehicles of non-combatants, many LEOs have a "shoot first, fabricate evidence later" mentality. These targets reinforce that mindset while training the next generation of LEOs.

So this company made these targets. I'd like to know what agency bought them if any. Is there proof they actually went out to someone? I mean, just because they have a contract with DHS doesn't mean DHS bought this product right?

As a building contractor, just because I have an account at a lumber yard doesn't mean I buy 4' 2x4's just because the yard stocks them.

I rarely if ever jump to conclusions. For example: I'm not assuming that just because an anonymous commenter claims to be a building contractor, that he actually pursues that worthwhile occupation.

Very early in the article above we find the following statement, which contains a corroborative link:

"The company’s marketing team explains that the `non-traditional' targets `were created at the request of police officers and trainers'...."

What this means, of course, is that the company didn't create these targets sua sponte; they were made in response to customer demand, and the customers in question were police trainers seeking to break down inhibitions on the part of police officers regarding the use of lethal force against pregnant women, children, and the elderly. They stocked those products because willing customers had requested them, and intended to buy and use them.

Reflexive snarkiness is a poor substitute for reading comprehension skills.